Mat 28:1 teaches Shabbat Resurrection

[Daniel Gregg]

Now the later of the Shabba̱t̑s, at the dawning on the first of the Shabba̱t̑s, Mirya̱m Ha-Magdalit and the other Mirya̱m came to look at the grave.†

►28:1 later of the Shabba̱t̑s; the second of two Shabba̱t̑s in Passover week. The first annual Shabba̱t̑ was the 15th of Aviv. The first weekly Shabba̱t̑ followed it. Both Shabba̱t̑s are first, the 15th on account of being the first feast day Shabba̱t̑, and the following weekly Shabba̱t̑ on account of the command to count seven Shabba̱t̑s between Passover and Sha̱v̱u‛ot̑. See Lev23v15. • first of the Shabba̱t̑s: הַשַּׁבָּתוֹת אַחַת = μίαν σαββάτων = ’aɦ̣at̑ ha-Shabba̱t̑ot̑. The phrase could mean one of the Shabba̱t̑s in an indefinite sense, but the Hebrew word one is also used for first, and it is evident from the instructions to count seven Shabba̱t̑s in Lev23v15 that first is meant.

 

[Lulav]

I think someone was just discussing this in a very recent thread

 

[Daniel Gregg]

hmm Acts 20:7 thread...I didn't see Mat 28:1 particularly talked about.

 

[Daniel Gregg]

By the way, all the other passages say the same thing, "first of the Sabbaths"

Now the later of the Shabba̱t̑s, at the dawning on the first of the Shabba̱t̑s, Mirya̱m Ha-Magdalit and the other Mirya̱m came to look at the grave.†

►28:1 later of the Shabba̱t̑s; the second of two Shabba̱t̑s in Passover week. The first annual Shabba̱t̑ was the 15th of Aviv. The first weekly Shabba̱t̑ followed it. Both Shabba̱t̑s are first, the 15th on account of being the first feast day Shabba̱t̑, and the following weekly Shabba̱t̑ on account of the command to count seven Shabba̱t̑s between Passover and Sha̱v̱u‛ot̑. See Lev23v15. • first of the Shabba̱t̑s: הַשַּׁבָּתוֹת אַחַת = μίαν σαββάτων = ’aɦ̣at̑ ha-Shabba̱t̑ot̑. The phrase could mean one of the Shabba̱t̑s in an indefinite sense, but the Hebrew word one is also used for first, and it is evident from the instructions to count seven Shabba̱t̑s in Lev23v15 that first is meant.

 

[Avodat]

This debate, in embryo, is also in your thread: Hosea 6 and the 3rd day. Here's an excerpt:

►20:1 In Hebrew “first of the Sabbaths” = אַחַת־הַשָּׁבַּתוֹת or “one of the Sabbaths”, “one of the Sabbath days”, and in Aramaic בְּחַדֿ־דְּשַׁבְּתָֿא This was the resurrection day “while still dark”. It was before dawn on the Shabbat that Yeshua was raised. These idioms translate into Greek as “Τῇ δὲ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων”, which means “one day of the sabbaths”, and not “first day of the week”. Seven Sabbaths were counted in the day after the Passover (Lev. 23:15). The resurrection day was the first of these.

● If μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων is simply taken as a Hebraism for אַחַת־הַשָּׁבַּתוֹת then the feminine gender of the Greek is to be explained by the feminine gender of הַשָּׁבַּתוֹת; however, appeal to the Hebraism is not necessary to win the gender argument. The Greek requires the substantive “day” in the text, “first [day] of the Sabbaths”; inserting the substantive gives us: ἡμέρᾳ τῶν σαββάτων, which occurs 19x in the LXX and NT, and always means the Sabbath day.

 

[Daniel Gregg]

Getting the death and resurrection of Messiah right IS important...1Cor 15.

This debate, in embryo, is also in your thread: Hosea 6 and the 3rd day. Here's an excerpt:

 

[Avodat]

Getting the death and resurrection of Messiah right IS important...1Cor 15.

I'm sure that is correct - by why run the debate over two threads? Points will be made in one or the other of which not all posters will be aware.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Getting the death and resurrection of Messiah right IS important...1Cor 15.

Show us, though, where it says there that getting the details about days and mornings and evenings and all that mess is so important. What Paul stated was important was faith in the resurrection of Jesus, not an argument of the specific day on which each detail happened. If the authors had cared about those things, they would have spelled it all out plainly – saying what day of the week it was when he died, what hour of the day and when it was that he was raised. Oh, wait! They did write all of that into their gospels. You simply don’t believe them and want to twist their words into meaning something else. Nice.

 

[Daniel Gregg]

Show us, though, where it says there that getting the details about days and mornings and evenings and all that mess is so important. What Paul stated was important was faith in the resurrection of Jesus, not an argument of the specific day on which each detail happened. If the authors had cared about those things, they would have spelled it all out plainly – saying what day of the week it was when he died, what hour of the day and when it was that he was raised. Oh, wait! They did write all of that into their gospels. You simply don’t believe them and want to twist their words into meaning something else. Nice.

That would be a diversion from what the text says, "first of the Sabbaths"

 

[ContraMundum]

Show us, though, where it says there that getting the details about days and mornings and evenings and all that mess is so important. What Paul stated was important was faith in the resurrection of Jesus, not an argument of the specific day on which each detail happened. If the authors had cared about those things, they would have spelled it all out plainly – saying what day of the week it was when he died, what hour of the day and when it was that he was raised. Oh, wait! They did write all of that into their gospels. You simply don’t believe them and want to twist their words into meaning something else. Nice.

Well said. The issue here is essentially a complete disregard for the sanctity and inspiration of scripture. The Greek is continually re-interpreted in the light of a completely different language- Hebrew- and this allows for second-guessing and ultimately means scripture becomes putty in the subjective hands of the interpreter. This is a chaotic and uncertain method, filled with the danger of manipulation and eisegesis. The notion that the authors of the NT not only chose to communicate in Greek but were inspired in doing so is a threat to the theology of an iconoclast.

True, the authors of scripture were familiar and accustomed to a Hebraic paradigm, but they were not constrained to it, as they spoke and wrote in Greek, which is a precise language and very capable of communicating fine points without rampant opportunity of ambiguity or confusion. Greek is very precise, and was known by most of the world. Makes sense to write a document meant for the whole world to read in such a precise and universal language. The authors knew their audience, and were more than capable of communicating their thoughts to the minds of Latins and Hellenists. IOW- the NT is not a secretive document which can only be understood with a special code or key known only to Jews or those familiar with Judaism. It's meaning is plain and clear a huge amount of the time to Latin, Greek and Jew. How the meaning of those words is applied and interpreted is another thing, there being unity on most points of doctrine and diversity on others. I can live with that. Why can't others?

 

[Daniel Gregg]

So far, no valid arguments against the OP.

 

[Avodat]

What a surprise... the concept is already being debated on another of your threads:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7720863/

 

[ContraMundum]

So far, no valid arguments against the OP.

Yes. In my post I address proper grammatical process. This is the a valid argument. My concern is that using your method you can make up just about any doctrine you want. It doesn't deal with grammar of the authors, nor does it receive their competance and inspiration. Until the basics are sorted, there's no point going any further.

 

[Daniel Gregg]

Yes. In my post I address proper grammatical process. This is the a valid argument. My concern is that using your method you can make up just about any doctrine you want. It doesn't deal with grammar of the authors, nor does it receive their competance and inspiration. Until the basics are sorted, there's no point going any further.

The basics: Sabbaton = Sabbaths

The lie: Sabbath = Sunday.

 

[Avodat]

The basics: Sabbaton = Sabbaths

The lie: Sabbath = Sunday.

I think just about everyone on here knows that Sunday started at sundown on the 7th day and we work with it to change the false perception that gives us Sunday as the Sabbath. There have been lots of threads about this!

So what's the big deal?

 

[yonah_mishael]

The basics: Sabbaton = Sabbaths

The lie: Sabbath = Sunday.

No one here or anywhere else would argue that σάββατον means “Sunday.” It is the concensus of EVERYONE that μία τῶν σαββάτων means “Sunday,” however. You’re kicking against the goads.

 

[GuardianShua]

So far, no valid arguments against the OP.

“Now on the first day of the week ( Sabbaton σάββατον ), when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, ...

Acts 20:7
King James Version (KJV)

7 And upon the first day of the (week / Sabbath), when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

Is there a certain Sabbath festival that Jews come together to break bread?

 

[Daniel Gregg]

Did you see the Acts 20:7 thread? It is simply a case of circular reasoning to use a mistranslation as an argument for a mistranslation.

"But on the first of the Sabbaths..." (Acts 20:7).

“Now on the first day of the week ( Sabbaton σάββατον ), when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, ...

Acts 20:7
King James Version (KJV)

7 And upon the first day of the (week / Sabbath), when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

Is there a certain Sabbath festival that Jews come together to break bread?

 

[GuardianShua]

Did you see the Acts 20:7 thread? It is simply a case of circular reasoning to use a mistranslation as an argument for a mistranslation.

"But on the first of the Sabbaths..." (Acts 20:7).

I agree that the word should have been plural. Sabbath-s

 

[Daniel Gregg]

I agree that the word should have been plural. Sabbath-s

I missed you question the first time. "to break bread" is a common idiom for a fellowship meal. One may or may not read a kiddush into the idiom, but either way the Sabbath was the ordinary time for a kiddush or fellowship meal.